Isopropyl Alcohol Extraction of De‐hulled Yellow Mustard Flour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Vegetable oils are typically extracted with hexane; however, health and environmental concerns over its use have prompted the search for alternative solvents. Mustard oil was extracted with isopropyl alcohol (IPA) to produce an IPA‐oil miscella suitable for industrial applications. Single‐stage extraction resulted in 87.6 % oil yield at a 10:1 (v/w) IPA/flour ratio. Multiple‐stage extraction resulted in higher extraction efficiency with lower IPA use. Four‐stage cross‐current extraction at an IPA/flour ratio of 2:1 (v/w) per stage resulted in 93.7 % oil yield. At 45 °C, a 91.5 % oil yield was achieved with three‐stage extraction using a 2:1 (v/w) IPA/flour ratio. Any changes to the pH of the mixture resulted in reduced oil yield. Water also reduced the extraction efficiency. The azeotropic IPA solution containing 13 % water extracted ~40 % less oil than did dry IPA in both single and multiple‐stage extractions. Some polar compounds were also extracted, including sugars; however, protein extraction was negligible. The protein left in the extracted meal was not degraded or lost during the extraction. The results suggest that IPA is an excellent solvent for mustard oil, but water content exceeding 5 % in the solvent adversely affects the oil extraction and reuse of the IPA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".